Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

QCD sum rules yield all fourteen form factors and decay widths of the Ω_b^*→Ω_c^* ℓν̄_ℓ transition: 2.5, 2.5 and 0.71 × 10⁻¹² GeV (e, μ, τ).

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

The Omega_b* -> Omega_c* l nu semileptonic decay widths are predicted with QCD sum rules: about 2.5e-12 GeV for electron/muon channels and 0.71e-12 GeV for the tau channel, with R = 0.29.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First QCD sum-rule estimate of Omega_b^* -> Omega_c^* semileptonic widths, likely right in spirit but the quoted errors are too narrow because the between-structure-set spread is not included in the average. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01195 v3 pith:HF6BMW3W submitted 2025-09-01 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Semileptonic $\Omega_{b}^{*}\rightarrow\Omega_{c}^{*} \ell \bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ transition in QCD

A. Amiri , P. Eslami , K. Azizi , R. Jafariseyedabad This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords QCD sum rulessemileptonic weak decayOmega_b^* baryonOmega_c^* baryonspin-3/2 baryonsb to c transitiontransition form factorshelicity amplitudes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish the Standard Model benchmark values for the semileptonic weak decay of the excited bottom baryon Ω_b^* (spin 3/2) into the excited charmed baryon Ω_c^* (spin 3/2) — a 3/2 → 3/2 b→c transition that has never been measured. Using three-point QCD sum rules, the authors extract all fourteen form factors (seven vector, seven axial-vector) that parametrize the transition matrix element, working to mass dimension six in the operator product expansion, and fit their q² dependence. Feeding the fitted form factors into the standard helicity-amplitude formalism gives predicted widths of 2.47 × 10⁻¹² GeV (electron), 2.46 × 10⁻¹² GeV (muon) and 0.71 × 10⁻¹² GeV (tau), with tau-to-electron ratio R = 0.29 ± 0.01. If these numbers are right, future hadron-collider measurements should reproduce them, and any deviation would signal new physics in the b→c sector; the results also give a quantitative handle on the weak dynamics of an excited bottom baryon whose dominant radiative decay is nearly undetectable because its photon is so soft.

Core claim

The central claim is a complete sum-rule determination of the Ω_b^* → Ω_c^* ℓν̄_ℓ transition. The authors compute the three-point correlation function of spin-3/2 interpolating currents on both the hadronic and quark-gluon sides, discard the Lorentz structures that carry spin-1/2 contamination, and extract fourteen q²-dependent form factors — F₁…F₇ (vector) and G₁…G₇ (axial-vector) — each fitted by the rational function of Eq. (34). Averaged over three sets of Lorentz structures, the predicted widths are 2.47 × 10⁻¹² GeV (electron), 2.46 × 10⁻¹² GeV (muon) and 0.71 × 10⁻¹² GeV (tau), with R = Γ(τ)/Γ(e or μ) = 0.29 ± 0.01. These are presented as theoretical benchmarks for forthcoming measurem

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-point correlation function Π_{ρμν}(p, p′, q²) of the transition current c̄γ_μ(1−γ₅)b between spin-3/2 interpolating currents (quark-field operators with the baryons' quantum numbers). On the hadronic side, saturating with the two baryon states turns it into the fourteen form factors; on the QCD side the same function is evaluated by the operator product expansion (short-distance expansion into perturbative plus condensate terms) through dimension-six condensates. A double Borel transformation suppresses excited states and continuum; quark-hadron duality with thresholds s₀, s′₀ completes each sum rule. Spin-1/2 contamination, the hazard specific to 3/2 cur

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that dropping the Lorentz structures containing γ_ρ, γ_ν, p′_ρ and p_ν (Eq. 11) removes the spin-1/2 contamination completely; if any spin-1/2 contribution survives, all fourteen form factors and every decay width shift.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of a single form factor at q² = 0 — for instance the vector form factor F₁(0) ≈ 8.7 or the axial G₁(0) ≈ 4.9 — would settle the sum-rule extraction, because the fitted q² functions are anchored to those values; agreement within errors would validate the predicted widths. Experimentally, a measurement of R = Γ(Ω_b^*→Ω_c^* τν̄_τ)/Γ(Ω_b^*→Ω_c^* eν̄_e) from b-baryon samples would directly test the predicted 0.29.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The averaged electron and muon widths (2.47 and 2.46 × 10⁻¹² GeV) and the tau width (0.71 × 10⁻¹² GeV) become the Standard Model expectations that future hadron-collider measurements of this transition should be compared against.
  • The complete set of q²-dependent form factors permits computation of differential distributions and lepton-side observables for all three channels, not just integrated widths.
  • Since Ω_b^* is expected to decay predominantly via the radiative mode Ω_b^* → Ω_b γ with a photon of only tens of MeV, these weak widths are among the few testable predictions for the excited bottom baryon's decay dynamics.
  • The three sets of Lorentz structures yield mutually consistent widths (1.65–2.97 × 10⁻¹² GeV for the electron channel), and their average is the paper's quoted benchmark.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the uncertainty quoted on R (±0.01) is far smaller than the ~25% uncertainties on the individual widths, because most QCD inputs cancel in the ratio; a lattice or experimental determination of R alone would therefore be the sharpest test of this calculation.
  • Editorial extension: heavy-quark spin symmetry relates the ground-state Ω_b → Ω_c transition of the companion sum-rule study [41] to this 3/2 → 3/2 transition at leading order in 1/m_Q; comparing the two form-factor sets, both now available from the same method, would quantify spin-symmetry breaking.
  • Editorial extension: the tau channel, though phase-space suppressed, leaves a displaced-vertex signature that colliders can trigger on, so R = 0.29 might be measured even if the tiny electron and muon channels individually are not; a measured ratio well above 0.29 would mimic the pattern of the b→cτν anomalies seen in B-meson decays.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the semileptonic weak transition Ω_b^*(3/2^+, bss) → Ω_c^*(3/2^+, css) ℓ ν̄_ℓ using three-point QCD sum rules. A correlation function is matched between a phenomenological side parametrized by seven vector (F_i) and seven axial (G_i) form factors and an OPE side computed through dimension-six condensates. Borel windows (M^2 = 9–12 GeV^2, M'^2 = 6–9 GeV^2) are fixed by pole dominance (≥ 0.5) and OPE convergence (≤ 0.05), with continuum thresholds selected by stability. The q^2 dependence is fitted with the rational function of Eq. (34) for three different sets of Lorentz structures, although fit parameters are tabulated only for set 1 (Tables 3 and 4). The resulting widths, averaged over the three sets, are Γ_e = 2.47 × 10^-12 GeV, Γ_μ = 2.46 × 10^-12 GeV, Γ_τ = 0.71 × 10^-12 GeV, giving R = Γ_τ/Γ_e = 0.29 ± 0.01 (Eq. (42)). The paper presents these as Standard Model benchmark values.

Significance. If substantiated, this is the first QCD sum-rule treatment of the 3/2→3/2 Ω_b^*→Ω_c^* transition and provides falsifiable predictions for a channel that will be difficult but not impossible to probe at future LHC runs. The paper follows the standard machinery of the field: explicit interpolating currents, OPE through dimension six, pole-dominance and OPE-convergence criteria, stability plots, and three alternative structure sets as a cross-check. The cross-check is a strength, but it exposes a factor-1.8 spread in the widths that is not reflected in the quoted errors, and the extraction is therefore not yet demonstrated to be unique. The analysis is not fully reproducible from the text alone because the spectral densities are not given explicitly and the fit parameters are shown for only one of the three structure sets; no code or supplementary material is provided. Nevertheless, the central derivation is a standard three-point sum rule and, if the identified issues are resolved, the paper would be a useful benchmark calculation for the community.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Table 5] The three Lorentz-structure sets give Γ_e = 2.78, 2.97, 1.65 (×10^-12 GeV), a spread of about a factor 1.8. The quoted average, 2.47^{+0.64}_{-0.49}, has a 68% lower edge of 1.98 × 10^-12 GeV, which is above the set-3 central value; the between-set disagreement is therefore not covered by the reported uncertainty. Since §3.1 asserts that all three sets are acceptable after spin-1/2 removal and Borel stabilization, the extraction is not unique under the paper's own criteria, and the 'SM benchmark' claim rests on an unjustified average. The same issue affects R: values for the three sets are 0.273, 0.290, 0.309, a spread larger than the quoted ±0.01. Please provide fit parameters for sets 2 and 3, quote each set separately, and include the between-set variance as a systematic error, or justify selecting a preferred set.
  2. [Tables 3, 4 and Eq. (34)] Fit parameters are given only for set 1, and only F(0)/G(0) carry uncertainties; the shape parameters a, b, c, d are quoted without errors and no covariance with F(0) is provided. The decay width in Eq. (40) is an integral over q^2 up to m_-^2 ≈ 11 GeV^2, so the shape parameters contribute directly to the uncertainty. The errors in Table 5 therefore omit an entire error source even for set 1. Please propagate uncertainties in all fit parameters, or supply a covariance matrix, so that the quoted width errors are not optimistic by construction.
  3. [Eq. (40)] The prefactor 1/2 in Eq. (40) equals 1/(2J_i+1) for an initial spin-1/2 state. For the initial spin 3/2^+ baryon, the conventional spin-average factor is 1/4. The helicity sum H^{3/2→3/2} in Eq. (41) already sums over positive and negative final-state and W helicities, hence over all four initial polarizations, so no additional factor of 2 is apparent. Unless H is defined with an extra factor of 2 (not stated), all entries in Table 5 are too large by a factor of 2. Please confirm the normalization against Ref. [44]. R is unaffected, but Γ_e, Γ_μ, and Γ_τ would each halve if the concern is correct.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (11)] The removal of spin-1/2 contamination is asserted by dropping structures containing γ_ρ at the far left, γ_ν at the far right, and terms proportional to p'_ρ and p_ν. This assumption is not independently tested. The three-set comparison in §3.1 is in fact the natural test, and it shows a factor-1.8 disagreement, so residual spin-1/2 pollution cannot be excluded on the evidence presented. Please quantify the effect—for example, by repeating the extraction with a different interpolating current, or by checking that the extracted form factors are independent of the chosen structure set within a common error—or state this limitation explicitly in the error budget.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, first paragraph] Typo: 'QCD sun rule' should be 'QCD sum rule'.
  2. [Eq. (40)] The integration limits are written as 'm^2_- to m^2_ℓ', which is ambiguous. Presumably the physical range is m_ℓ^2 ≤ q^2 ≤ m_-^2; please clarify the order of the limits.
  3. [Table 2] The value m_{Ω_b^*} = (6084 ± 84) MeV and the residue λ_{Ω_b^*} are taken from Ref. [6], but Ω_b^*(1S,3/2^+) is not an established PDG state. The 84 MeV uncertainty is a large phase-space input; please justify the identification and discuss the sensitivity of Table 5 to this mass.
  4. [Figs. 1–3] The stability plots and the pole-dominance/OPE-convergence diagnostics are shown only for set 1. Please show the same diagnostics for sets 2 and 3, or at least tabulate the pole-dominance and OPE-convergence ratios, so that the acceptance of all three sets can be assessed.
  5. [Appendix A] The appendix lists only the Lorentz-structure decomposition of the QCD correlation function. The spectral densities ρ_i(s,s',q^2) and the non-imaginary pieces Γ_i are not given explicitly. A supplementary file with these expressions would make the calculation reproducible and allow independent checks.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusions] Phrases such as 'useful theoretical benchmarks' and 'pioneering' overstate the robustness of the results given the structure-set spread and the normalization question in Eq. (40). Suggest tempering these claims until the systematic issues are resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the form factors are extracted from a three-point QCD sum rule with literature inputs, and the decay widths are computed from the extracted form factors, not fitted to them.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the extraction of the Ω_b^* → Ω_c^* ℓν form factors and the resulting decay widths using three-point QCD sum rules. The derivation chain is: compute the OPE side of the three-point correlation function, match it to the phenomenological side, solve for the fourteen form factors, fit their q^2-dependence to a rational function, and integrate to obtain widths. No measured decay width or branching fraction for Ω_b^* → Ω_c^* ℓν is used as input. The q^2-dependence is fitted to the computed sum-rule points, not to the target observable, so this is not a fitted-input-called-prediction case. The input masses, residues, and condensates are taken from the literature (PDG and prior QCD sum-rule analyses). Although some of these inputs come from papers by the same group (e.g., refs. [2] and [6] for the interpolating current and the Ω_b^* mass/residues), those cited results are independent in the required sense: they are spectroscopic parameters determined from two-point sum rules, they are not equivalent to the transition form factors or widths computed here, and they are externally testable (e.g., by lattice QCD or alternative methods). The use of such literature values is standard practice and does not make the present prediction circular. The paper's internal spread across three Lorentz-structure sets (roughly a factor of 1.8 in the electron width) is a robustness/consistency concern about the sum-rule extraction, not a circularity. No step in the derivation reduces, by construction, to its own input. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on the standard QCD sum rule program: auxiliary Borel parameters and continuum thresholds are chosen by stability, the spin-1/2 contamination is removed by a structural prescription, the OPE is truncated at dimension six, and the Omega_b^* mass and residue are taken from a previous sum-rule paper by the same group. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Borel mass parameters M^2, M'^2 = M^2 in 9-12 GeV^2; M'^2 in 6-9 GeV^2
    Auxiliary parameters introduced by the Borel transformation; working regions chosen by pole dominance (Eq. 30) and OPE convergence (Eq. 31), not fixed by external data.
  • Continuum thresholds s0, s'0 = s0 ~ 40.75-43.35 GeV^2; s'0 ~ (m_Omega_c* + 0.3)^2 to (m_Omega_c* + 0.5)^2
    Chosen to suppress excited states and continuum and to stabilize the form factors; central values are used in the fits.
  • Form-factor normalizations F_i(0), G_i(0) = Set 1: F(0) = 8.73, -3.25, -0.80, -1.28, 1.78, 0.27, 4.05; G(0) = 4.85, 0.72, 0.99, 3.07, -0.59, -2.06, -1.15
    Extracted from the sum rules at q^2 = 0; these are the numerical outputs fitted to a rational function.
  • q^2-shape coefficients a, b, c, d for 14 form factors = Tables 3 and 4, set 1 only
    Five-parameter rational fit to the computed q^2 behavior; no uncertainties reported, and analogous fits for sets 2 and 3 are not shown.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality with continuum subtraction at thresholds s0 and s'0 reproduces the true hadronic spectral density in the Borel window.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.3 around Eq. (29); load-bearing for all sum-rule extractions.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin-1/2 contamination from the interpolating currents is fully removed by dropping structures with gamma_rho at the far left, gamma_nu at the far right, and terms proportional to p'_rho and p_nu.
    Eqs. (10) and (11) in Sec. 2.2; if incomplete, all fourteen form factors are polluted.
  • domain assumption The interpolating current in Eq. (14) for Omega_Q^* couples to the spin-3/2 state with a controllable spin-1/2 piece.
    Standard current taken from ref [2]; underlies the residue definitions in Eq. (9).
  • domain assumption The OPE truncated at mass dimension six, with the listed condensates, is convergent in the chosen Borel windows.
    Eq. (31) checks that the dimension-six term is below 5%, but does not test dimension-seven and higher terms.
  • standard math The 14-form-factor parametrization in Eq. (5) and the helicity formalism of ref [44] are complete for 3/2+ -> 3/2+ semileptonic decays.
    Used throughout Secs. 2.2 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption The input Omega_b^* mass and residue from ref [6], itself a QCD sum rule calculation with overlapping authorship, are correct.
    Table 2 lists m_Omega_b* = 6084 ± 84 MeV and the residues; these determine phase space and normalization.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semileptonic $\Omega_{b}^{*}\rightarrow\Omega_{c}^{*} \ell \bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ transition in QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HF6BMW3W

@misc{pith2026250901195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semileptonic $\Omega_b^*\rightarrow\Omega_c^* \ell \bar\nu_\ell$ transition in QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HF6BMW3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01195}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We employ the QCD sum rule method to study the semileptonic weak decay of the single bottom baryon $\Omega_{b}^{*}$ with spin $\frac{3}{2}$ into the single charmed baryon $\Omega_{c}^{*}$ with spin $\frac{3}{2}$, corresponding to a $\frac{3}{2}\rightarrow\frac{3}{2}$ weak transition. A three-point correlation function is calculated in both the physical and theoretical sides to derive the sum rules for the form factors of the transition. The analysis incorporates both the perturbative and non-perturbative contributions up to mass dimension six. After determining the working regions of the auxiliary parameters and performing numerical calculations of the sum rules of the form factors, we extract the $q^2$-dependent fit functions for the form factors. The obtained fit functions are then applied to compute the decay widths of the $\Omega_{b}^{*}\rightarrow\Omega_{c}^{*} \ell \bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ transition in all lepton channels. Our results may serve as useful theoretical benchmarks for future experimental investigations of the semileptonic $\Omega_{b}^{*}\rightarrow\Omega_{c}^{*} \ell \bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ weak decays and the weak dynamics of excited heavy baryons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01195 by A. Amiri, K. Azizi, P. Eslami, R. Jafariseyedabad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dependence of the form factors, Fi and Gi , on the auxiliary parameters M2 and s0 at q 2 = 0, with the other auxiliary parameters fixed at their central values, for the first set of selected structures. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The behavior of the form factors, Fi and Gi , as functions of q 2 at the central values of the auxiliary parameters for the first set of selected structures. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The behavior of the form factors, Fi and Gi , as functions of q 2 at the central values of the auxiliary parameters, using the fitted functions with their corresponding errors from Tables 3 and 4. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 18 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Heavy baryons in a quark model,

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, “Heavy baryons in a quark model,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008) 2817–2860 , arXiv:0711.2492 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    Mass and Magnetic Moments of the Heavy Flavored Baryons with $J=3/2$ in Light Cone QCD Sum Rules

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and A. Ozpineci, “Mass and Magnetic Moments o f the Heavy Flavored Baryons with J = 3 2 in Light Cone QCD Sum Rules,” Nucl. Phys. B 808 (2009) 137–154 , arXiv:0807.3481 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Analysis of the ${3\over 2}^+$ heavy and doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules

    Z.-G. Wang, “Analysis of the 3 2 + heavy and doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules,” Eur. Phys. J. C 68 (2010) 459–472 , arXiv:1002.2471 [hep-ph] . 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states Ω b, Ω c, Ξ ′ b, Ξ ′ c, Σ b and Σ c with QCD sum rules,

    Z.-G. Wang, “Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states Ω b, Ω c, Ξ ′ b, Ξ ′ c, Σ b and Σ c with QCD sum rules,” Phys. Lett. B 685 (2010) 59–66 , arXiv:0912.1648 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Spec trum of heavy baryons in the quark model,

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and K. Sadato, “Spec trum of heavy baryons in the quark model,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 11, (2015) 114029 , arXiv:1510.01067 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    On the nature of the newly discovered $\Omega_c^{0}$ states

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, “On the nature of the newly d iscovered Ω 0 c states,” EPL 118 no. 6, (2017) 61001 , arXiv:1703.07091 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Strong and ra diative decays of the low-lying S- and P -wave singly heavy baryons,

    K.-L. Wang, Y.-X. Yao, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, “Strong and ra diative decays of the low-lying S- and P -wave singly heavy baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 11, (2017) 116016 , arXiv:1709.04268 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Masses and radiative decay wid ths of S- and P-wave singly, doubly, and triply heavy charm and bottom baryons,

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, “Masses and radiative decay wid ths of S- and P-wave singly, doubly, and triply heavy charm and bottom baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 5, (2023) 054014 , arXiv:2307.04939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Interpretation of the newly observed $\Omega_c^0$ resonances

    W. Wang and R.-L. Zhu, “Interpretation of the newly observed Ω 0 c resonances,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 1, (2017) 014024 , arXiv:1704.00179 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Quantum Numbers of Recently D iscovered Ω 0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD,

    M. Padmanath and N. Mathur, “Quantum Numbers of Recently D iscovered Ω 0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 4, (2017) 042001 , arXiv:1704.00259 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Hadronic decay properties o f newly observed Ω c baryons,

    Z. Zhao, D.-D. Ye, and A. Zhang, “Hadronic decay properties o f newly observed Ω c baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 11, (2017) 114024 , arXiv:1704.02688 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Very narrow excited Ω c baryons,

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, “Very narrow excited Ω c baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 11, (2017) 114012 , arXiv:1703.07774 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Singly heavy Ome ga Baryon (Ω 0 c & Ω − b ) Spectroscopy in the Relativistic Framework of Independent Quark Model,

    R. V. Patel, M. Shah, S. Patel, and B. Pandya, “Singly heavy Ome ga Baryon (Ω 0 c & Ω − b ) Spectroscopy in the Relativistic Framework of Independent Quark Model,” arXiv:2506.23594 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Production and Decay of Omega_c^0

    BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. , “Production and decay of Ω 0 c,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 062001 , arXiv:hep-ex/0703030

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    Observation of an Excited Charm Baryon OmegaC* Decaying to OmegaC0 Gamma

    BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. , “Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω ∗ c decaying to Ω 0 cγ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 232001 , arXiv:hep-ex/0608055

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    Observation of five new narrow Ω 0 c states decaying to Ξ + cK −,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Observation of five new narrow Ω 0 c states decaying to Ξ + cK −,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 18, (2017) 182001 , arXiv:1703.04639 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Observation of Excited Ω c Charmed Baryons in e+e− Collisions,

    Belle Collaboration, J. Yelton et al. , “Observation of Excited Ω c Charmed Baryons in e+e− Collisions,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 5, (2018) 051102 , arXiv:1711.07927 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Observation of excited Ω 0 c baryons in Ω − b → Ξ+ cK −π−decays,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Observation of excited Ω 0 c baryons in Ω − b → Ξ+ cK −π−decays,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 9, (2021) L091102 , arXiv:2107.03419 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Observation of New Ω 0 c States Decaying to the Ξ + cK − Final State,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Observation of New Ω 0 c States Decaying to the Ξ + cK − Final State,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 no. 13, (2023) 131902 , arXiv:2302.04733 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Spectra of h eavy baryons from qcd spectral sum rules,

    E. Bagan, M. Chabab, H. Dosch, and S. Narison, “Spectra of h eavy baryons from qcd spectral sum rules,” Physics Letters B 287 no. 1, (1992) 176–178 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026939291896H

    arXiv 1992

  21. [21]

    Masses of excited h eavy baryons in the relativistic quark model,

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, “Masses of excited h eavy baryons in the relativistic quark model,” Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 612–620 , arXiv:0705.2957 [hep-ph] . 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [22]

    Analysis of $\Omega_b^-(bss)$ and $\Omega_c^0(css)$ with QCD sum rules

    Z.-G. Wang, “Analysis of Ω − b (bss) and Ω 0 c(css) with QCD sum rules,” Eur. Phys. J. C 61 (2009) 321–329 , arXiv:0809.3038 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Heavy hadron spectroscopy: a quark model perspective

    J. Vijande, A. Valcarce, T. F. Carames, and H. Garcilazo, “Hea vy hadron spectroscopy: a quark model perspective,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22 (2013) 1330011 , arXiv:1212.4383 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    D-wave charmed and bottomed baryons from QCD sum rules

    H.-X. Chen, Q. Mao, A. Hosaka, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, “D-wave c harmed and bottomed baryons from QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 94 no. 11, (2016) 114016 , arXiv:1611.02677 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Decay widths of the excited $\Omega_b$ baryons

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, “Decay widths of the excite d Ω b baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 9, (2017) 094011 , arXiv:1708.07348 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Molecular $\Omega_b$ states

    W.-H. Liang, J. M. Dias, V. R. Debastiani, and E. Oset, “Molecular Ωb states,” Nucl. Phys. B 930 (2018) 524–532 , arXiv:1711.10623 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Possible inter pretation of the newly observed Ω b states,

    L.-Y. Xiao, K.-L. Wang, M.-S. Liu, and X.-H. Zhong, “Possible inter pretation of the newly observed Ω b states,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no. 3, (2020) 279 , arXiv:2001.05110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Observation of the doubly strange b baryon Ω − b ,

    D0 Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al. , “Observation of the doubly strange b baryon Ω − b ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 232002 , arXiv:0808.4142 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    Observation of the Omega_b^- and Measurement of the Properties of the Xi_b^- and Omega_b^-

    CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al. , “Observation of the Ω − b and Measurement of the Properties of the Ξ − b and Ω − b ,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 072003 , arXiv:0905.3123 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    Measurement of the Λ 0 b, Ξ − b and Ω − b baryon masses,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Measurement of the Λ 0 b, Ξ − b and Ω − b baryon masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 18, (2013) 182001 , arXiv:1302.1072 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Mass and lifetime measurements of bottom and charm baryons in p¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV,

    CDF Collaboration, T. A. Aaltonen et al. , “Mass and lifetime measurements of bottom and charm baryons in p¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D 89 no. 7, (2014) 072014 , arXiv:1403.8126 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Measurement of the mass and lifetime of the Ω − b baryon,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “Measurement of the mass and lifetime of the Ω − b baryon,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 9, (2016) 092007 , arXiv:1604.01412 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    First observation of excited Ω − b states,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “First observation of excited Ω − b states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 no. 8, (2020) 082002 , arXiv:2001.00851 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al. , “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 3, (2024) 030001

    2024

  35. [35]

    Refining radiative decay stud ies in singly heavy baryons,

    Y.-X. Peng, S.-Q. Luo, and X. Liu, “Refining radiative decay stud ies in singly heavy baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 7, (2024) 074034 , arXiv:2405.12812 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    QCD and R esonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, “QCD and R esonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,” Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 385–447

    work page 1979

  37. [37]

    QCD and R esonance Physics: Applications,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, “QCD and R esonance Physics: Applications,” Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 448–518

    work page 1979

  38. [38]

    Gravitational form factors of the ∆ baryon via QCD sum ru les,

    Z. Dehghan, K. Azizi, and U. ¨Ozdem, “Gravitational form factors of the ∆ baryon via QCD sum ru les,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 9, (2023) 094037 , arXiv:2307.14880 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Investigations of $\Lambda$ states with spin-parity $\frac{3}{2}^{\pm}$

    K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, “Investigations of Λ states w ith spin-parity 3 2 ± ,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 7, (2024) 074028 , arXiv:2402.00134 [hep-ph] . 21

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Properties of the ground and excited states of triply heavy spin-1/2 baryons,

    Z. R. Najjar, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh, “Properties of the ground and excited states of triply heavy spin-1/2 baryons,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 6, (2024) 612 , arXiv:2402.14348 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Semileptonic Ω b→Ωcℓ¯νℓ transition in full QCD,

    Z. Neishabouri, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh, “Semileptonic Ω b→Ωcℓ¯νℓ transition in full QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 1, (2024) 014010 , arXiv:2404.12654 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Investigation of the semileptonic decay $ \Xi^{++}_{cc}\rightarrow \Xi^+_{c} \bar{\ell}\nu_{\ell}$ within QCD sum rules

    M. S. Tousi, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh, “Investigation of the semileptonic decay Ξ ++ cc →Ξ+ c ¯ℓνℓ within QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 11, (2024) 114001 , arXiv:2409.00241 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Phenomenology of the semileptonic $\Sigma_{b}^{*0}\,\rightarrow\, \Sigma_{c}^{+}\,\ell\,\bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ transition within QCD sum rules

    L. Khajouei and K. Azizi, “Phenomenology of the semileptonic Σ ∗0 b →Σ+ cℓ¯νℓ transition within QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 7, (2025) 074018 , arXiv:2410.11074 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Semileptonic decays of double heavy baryons in a relativistic constituent three-quark mod el,

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, and V. E . Lyubovitskij, “Semileptonic decays of double heavy baryons in a relativistic constituent three-quark mod el,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 034025 , arXiv:0907.0563 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Spin–3/2 to spin–1/2 heavy ba ryons and pseudoscalar mesons transitions in QCD,

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and M. Savci, “Spin–3/2 to spin–1/2 heavy ba ryons and pseudoscalar mesons transitions in QCD,” Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1675 , arXiv:1012.5935 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [46]

    Semileptonic Bs ->DsJ(2460)l nu decay in QCD

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and A. Ozpineci, “Semileptonic Bs →DsJ (2460)ℓν decay in QCD,” Eur. Phys. J. C 51 (2007) 593–599 , arXiv:hep-ph/0608264

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Four-quark exotic mesons,

    S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, “Four-quark exotic mesons,” Turk. J. Phys. 44 no. 2, (2020) 95–173 , arXiv:2004.12079 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    X (3872): propagating in a dense medium,

    K. Azizi and N. Er, “X (3872): propagating in a dense medium,” Nucl. Phys. B 936 (2018) 151–168 , arXiv:1710.02806 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Determination of Baryon and Bar yonic Resonance Masses from QCD Sum Rules. 1. Nonstrange Baryons,

    V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, “Determination of Baryon and Bar yonic Resonance Masses from QCD Sum Rules. 1. Nonstrange Baryons,” Sov. Phys. JETP 56 (1982) 493–501, ITEP–59–1982

    work page 1982

  50. [50]

    Determination of the baryon mas s and baryon resonances from the quantum-chromodynamics sum rule. Strange baryons,

    V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, “Determination of the baryon mas s and baryon resonances from the quantum-chromodynamics sum rule. Strange baryons,” Sov. Phys. JETP 57 (1983) 716–721, ITEP–132–1982

    work page 1983

  51. [51]

    QCD at low energies,

    B. L. Ioffe, “QCD at low energies,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56 (2006) 232–277 , arXiv:hep-ph/0502148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  52. [52]

    Radiative $\Omega_{Q}^{*}\rightarrow\Omega_{Q}\gamma$ and $\Xi_{Q}^{*}\rightarrow\Xi^{\prime}_{Q}\gamma$ transitions in light cone QCD

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, “Radiative Ω ∗ Q → ΩQγ and Ξ ∗ Q → Ξ′ Qγ transitions in light cone QCD,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75 no. 1, (2015) 14 , arXiv:1409.7577 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Strong decay widths of S- and P-wave singly-, doubly- and triply-heavy charm and bottom baryons

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, “Strong decay widths of S- an d P-wave singly-, doubly- and triply-heavy charm and bottom baryons,” arXiv:2410.09622 [hep-ph] . 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.